National University of Ireland, Galway
An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2009 2010
REVIEW OF
POSTGRADUATE CERTIFICATE, DIPLOMA
AND MASTERS IN HEALTH SCIENCES
(CLINICAL TEACHING) PROGRAMMES
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND,
GALWAY
Final REPORT
(14th April 2010)
Report on the Review of the Postgraduate Certificate, Diploma and Masters in Health
Sciences (Clinical Teaching) Programmes 2010
This report arises from a visit by a review team to the School of Medicine on 2nd.
February, 2010. The staff of the discipline of General Practice had already prepared
and submitted a 'Self Assessment Report' that, with other documentation, was made
available to the review team well in advance of the visit.
The review team consisted of: Dr. Michael T Ross, Joint Programme Director, M.Sc
Clinical Education, The Medical Teaching Organisation, The University of
Edinburgh, GU304, The Chancellors Building, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh ,
EH16 4SB, UK. Professor Áine Hyland, Emeritus Professor of Education and former
Vice-President, University College Cork (Chair). Professor Gerard Bury, Professor of
General Practice, Head of the Medical Education, Training and Research Unit,
University College Dublin. Dr. Kelly Coate, Centre for Excellence in Learning and
Teaching (CELT) NUI,Galway. Dr. William Carroll Head of the Division of Physical
Sciences, NUI,Galway, acting as Rapporteur.
1.



2.
Aims and Objectives
The Certificate and Diploma have a clear set of aims and objectives.
The programme has a clearly-identified target group. It aims to cater for
postgraduate professionals working across the full spectrum of healthcare
education including medicine, nursing and allied health professionals such as
Speech and Language therapists and Occupational Therapists. In the first two
years of the programmes the student cohort was inter-professional but because
of cutbacks in the HSE training budgets, most of the participants are from a
medical background. The organisers would like to restore a more balanced
professional mix.
Graduates from earlier years particularly appreciated the interaction and
mutual respect between different disciplines.
Organization and Management





The programme is well well-organised, well- structured and efficiently
delivered.
Programme material is coherent and well constructed.
Documentation (both printed and online versions) is prepared and made
available to students well in advance.
The delivery of the programme is dependent upon input from a small number
of committed individuals – not all of whom are staff of the School of
Medicine or contracted to do so, raising issues of sustainability.
The Panel commends the proposal to set up a programme board to oversee,
monitor and develop all aspects of the programme.
2
Report on the Review of the Postgraduate Certificate, Diploma and Masters in Health
Sciences (Clinical Teaching) Programmes 2010

The Panel was impressed by the thoughtful and innovative use of information
technologies to deliver and assess the programme
 Consideration might be given to phasing-out printed versions of materials
which are available online.
 The Panel suggests that a Student Support policy should be more clearly
articulated. While students praised the support currently available, this appears
to fall on one or two people and might be spread among more staff.
 The Panel noted and encouraged plans to enhance quality throughout the
programme by developing a staff induction and training strategy.
3.
Programmes and Instruction







The Panel notes that the Certificate and Diploma are worth 30 ECTs each – i.e.
the total credits awarded on successful completion of Year 1 is 60. The
Masters is worth 60 ECTs – of which the 3,000 word dissertation is worth 40
ECTs. More detail on how these credits are achieved would be helpful.
The Panel commends the diversity of teaching methods used throughout the
programme. The involvement of staff through the Discussion Groups on
Blackboard and the new Eluminate software is impressive. The on-campus
sessions are particularly welcomed by students who praised the accessibility
and openness of staff.
There is a need to clarify role of on-campus attendance, taking into account the
clear value attached to these sessions by students, while also recognising that
these may restrict the accessibility of the course. Is attendance at these
sessions compulsory? If so, must students attend all or a percentage? Should
they be assessed / credit-bearing? How do they relate to the online activities?
The Panel were impressed by the E-tivities with students being asked to give
feedback on each-others’ work. It was noted however that few comments had
actually been made by students, and this was also noted by staff as being more
of an issue this year. More guidance could be given to students on how much
feedback they are expected to contribute and why this is important.
While the Panel agrees that it is important that the courses be grounded in
learning theory, it was noted that some students found the first module
(Learning Theory in Clinical Settings) to be very theoretical and difficult to
engage with. The Panel suggests that the balance and sequence of modules on
theory and practice might be reconsidered.
The Panel was not familiar with the practice of 3000-word Masters
Dissertations, although it appears that this occurs in some European
universities with similar courses e.g. the University of Maastricht. The length
of the dissertation was regarded as restrictive by some students and alumni,
particularly for qualitative research, and some examiners also noted this to be
problematic.
The Panel noted and welcomed proposals for a more coherent and efficient
approach towards assignments in the second year (i.e. Masters year) which
would have the effect of coordinating the research course, evidence based
education course and the dissertation.
3
Report on the Review of the Postgraduate Certificate, Diploma and Masters in Health
Sciences (Clinical Teaching) Programmes 2010





4.
Scholarship and Research



5.
The Panel was informed that the reason that the required length of the
dissertation was only 3,000 words was to prepare students to produce a paper
which could immediately be submitted for publication. This raised a number
of issues, including the need to clarify the input / role of supervisors (and their
experience of publishing such papers themselves), and their potential
contribution as a co-author.
As the dissertation is formulated as a publishable paper, a record should be
kept of the number of previous dissertations published.
It would be desirable if dissertation supervisors and examiners were research
active in the specific field of the dissertation.
Community Service



5.
The Panel proposes the introduction of second internal marking for
dissertations, together with a clearly documented process for synthesising
these marks and dealing with significant discrepancies.
The Panel welcomed proposals to introduce standard setting procedures for all
assessments.
Students should be encouraged to supplement course readings with materials
that they independently source from their own discipline / field.
The Panel noted that the proportion of students who completed and returned
programme evaluation forms was very low. Student evaluation is particularly
important at this stage in programme development, and its value and impact
could be emphasised more to students.
The Panel noted that even though this programme is a Programme in Clinical
Teaching, there is no assessment of teaching practice at present. The Panel
notes and commends proposals to address this issue within a portfolio
framework.
The course fills a much-needed niche for the training of clinical teachers.
Panel supports the proposal to develop closer links with alumni, who are also
potential contributors and ambassadors for the programme.
Engagement with the Health Service Executive needs for clinical educational
expertise should become a priority for this programme and in developing this
engagement the Programme co-ordinator should be supported by the College
of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences.
Wider Context Summary and Concluding Remarks
The Panel was impressed by the initiative of the Department of General Practice in
setting up this programme and in building such interest from clinicians in a short
period of time. The format of the programme is particularly well suited to clinical
practitioners and the mix of online and on-campus learning was praised by current and
4
Report on the Review of the Postgraduate Certificate, Diploma and Masters in Health
Sciences (Clinical Teaching) Programmes 2010
past students. The course materials and readings are accessible and the interaction
between students from different professions is especially enriching. The programme is
innovative and challenging for participants, and for the School and University.
There is a need for a strategy at school and university level that recognises and
rewards professionally-orientated Masters Courses as well as research masters and
doctorates. While staff of the Management team both at School and University level
was individually supportive of the programme and of its staff, the Panel was not
convinced that a professionally-oriented and largely taught programme of this kind
was viewed with the same esteem as research Masters or Doctoral programmes.
The Panel noted that the programme is clearly a financial asset to the university. We
suggest that it should also be prized and showcased for its academic merit and
contribution to the community of clinical practice. The Panel is of the view that the
programme could be a flagship and model for future components of the college
postgraduate strategy to address the needs of the community of clinical practice –
ranging from clinicians entering postgraduate training to those in career-long CPD.
The Panel suggests that the College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences should
consider encouraging all new clinical academic staff to enrol on this course if they
haven’t already undertaking such training elsewhere. Such a development could be
facilitated by collaboration with other cognate courses.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
The Panel commends the Programme organisers and the Quality Office for providing
detailed and copious background material for the Review. We commend the Dept. of
General Practice for a comprehensive and reflective Self-assessment report. While the
visit was short – one full day – it was efficiently organised and no time was wasted.
The session with students and past students where two of the participants were in
contact by audio-conferencing, worked well. The only comment the Panel have to
make about the methodology of the visit is that we would have valued more time with
the students.
Professor Áine Hyland (Chair)
Professor G. Bury
Dr. M.T. Ross
Dr. K. Coate
Dr. W.M. Carroll (Rapporteur)
(Date 14/4/2010).
5